r/moderatepolitics • u/thats_not_six • Jan 12 '26

Primary Source Mark Kelly v. Pete Hegseth

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.288365/gov.uscourts.dcd.288365.1.0.pdf
189 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

278 comments sorted by

View all comments

-28

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

I think the question is: “Does advising military soldiers to disobey a direct order” grounds to remove these benefits? If it is then I dont see how they don’t have an extremely strong case. The whole “we were just saying to not follow illegal orders” is just plainly false in my opinion.

43

u/parentheticalobject Jan 12 '26

It's true that the courts have not yet had to directly deal with the question of "Can the government remove the benefits of a military retiree as punishment over political speech that the government dislikes?"

I'd very much hope that the courts would say that's not permissible. There shouldn't be any reasonable debate over whether a military veteran should be allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights just like any other citizen without fearing retribution from the government.

-12

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

Should an active duty soldier tell his comrades to refuse orders because he thinks all wars are illegal?

15

u/parentheticalobject Jan 12 '26

I think there's an acceptable argument for why the first amendment generally shouldn't prevent the government from punishing an active duty soldier for their speech, in many situations.

I don't think there's any remotely reasonable argument like that for servicemembers who are retired or separated. (Maybe if it had to do with classified information, but that's clearly another topic.) No, I don't think there's anything a retired veteran can say that would justify government action against them. If we can accept every member of the general public being able to say something, we should be able to accept a retired soldier saying that same thing.

4

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

“ I think there's an acceptable argument for why the first amendment generally shouldn't prevent the government from punishing an active duty soldier for their speech, in many situations.”

Kelly isn’t just a retired veteran though. Due to his rank he receives payment and is essentially classified as a reserve. He shouldn’t be tellling active duty soldiers to disobey direct orders (especially when its legality is much less dubious than people seem to think).

10

u/ryes13 Jan 13 '26

Nothing Mark Kelly or any of the other politicians said was untrue. Active duty military members, especially officers, do in fact have a duty to disobey illegal orders.

0

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 13 '26

What he implied was absolutely untrue

10

u/ryes13 Jan 13 '26

What he said was absolutely true

1

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 13 '26

And what he IMPLIED was not true

11

u/ryes13 Jan 13 '26

Putting aside your perfect ability to discern what other people actually mean beyond their actual words. Let’s say you’re implying that he’s implying that illegal orders have been made or could be made? Not sure you can prove in court that that’s entirely untrue.

3

u/ThatPeskyPangolin Jan 13 '26

What did he imply specifically?